Skip to main content

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: Walloon Date: Aug 20, 2009 10:29am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: More new monsters

Thank you for your detailed reply.

You write, "Because UK laws were altered, restoring lapsed copyrights, during the transitional period, any UK films that were PD in the US due to non-compliance and 50 or more years old at the end of 1994 remained in the US public domain."

The transitional period was from 1 January 1995 to 1 January 1996, correct? But the UK copyright of THE GHOUL was restored by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988 (to life of the author(s) plus 50 years), not during the transitional period. The 1995 Regulations only extended the copyright term (to life of the authors plus 70 years). Thus THE GHOUL was under copyright in its country of origin long before the transitional period began.

As for Golan v. Holder, the court found Section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act overbroad only "to the extent Section 514 suppresses the right of reliance parties to use works they exploited while the works were in the public domain". The Internet Archive is not a reliance party unless it can be shown that the Internet Archive distributed THE GHOUL prior to 1 January 1996.

This post was modified by Walloon on 2009-08-20 17:29:11

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Video-Cellar Date: Jun 15, 2009 9:49am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: More new monsters

Life of Authors + 70 years motion picture copyright terms were introduced by the mid 1995 UK Copyrights, Designs and Patents 1988 ammendments. Prior to the 1995 ammendments film copyright retained the fixed copyright terms reflected in the 1956 act (50 years). These ammendments introduced author's-life-based copyright terms to motion pictures in line with the EU standard. Prior to that all published and registered films made before the 1988 act were covered by the terms of the 1956 Act.

The 1988 act, at its inception, did not have the effect of reinstating any copyrights in works that had lapsed under the fixed terms of the 1911 and 1956 acts and the relevant film and film registration legislations. Reinstatement of lapsed copyright only occurred with the retrospectivity of the 1995 ammendments.

Some of the individuals who post digital copies of their prints on Internet Archive were "reliance parties". A successful constuitutional challenged should not preclude those "reliance parties" from using Internet Archive as the forum for the distribution of their protected speech.

This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2009-06-15 16:47:26

This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2009-06-15 16:49:54

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Walloon Date: Jun 15, 2009 10:38am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: More new monsters

Thank you for your reply.

You wrote, "Because UK laws were altered, restoring lapsed copyrights, during the transitional period, any UK films that were PD in the US due to non-compliance and 50 or more years old at the end of 1994 remained in the US public domain. They do not qualify for restoration under the terms of the URAA and its changes to the USC."

What is the section of the URAA that disqualifies films whose copyright status changed during the transition period of 1 January 1995 to 1 January 1996?
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=103_cong_bills&;docid=f:h5110enr.pdf

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Video-Cellar Date: Jul 10, 2009 6:49am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: More new monsters

In UK law, motion pictures remain protected by the relevant legislation at the time of publication and/or registration. There are three relevant pieces of legislation.

1. Copyright Act 1911
Films published on or before 31 May 1957 are protected as:

a) dramatic work protected for life of author (Director) + 50 years

b) a series of photographs (protected for 50 years from creation or 50 years from publication if published within 50 years of creation.)

c) a sound recording or series of sound recordings.(protected for 50 years from creation or 50 years from publication if published within 50 years of creation.)

2. The Copyright Act 1956
Films published and/or registered between 1 June 1957 and August 1989 are protected for a period of 50 Years for publication or registration. For unpublished/unregistered films created during this period, copyright lasts for 50 years from 1 August 1989.

3. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988.
For films created after 1 August 1989 copyright lasts for life plus 70 years for the last surviving "principle author" (director, producer, screenwriter, composer)

As such the 1995 UK copyright extensions did not have the effect of reinstating the copyright protection in "The Ghoul" during the transitional period for URAA. Thus rendering the film ineligible for copyright restoration.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Walloon Date: Jul 10, 2009 9:43am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: More new monsters

Thank you for your reply.

What is the section of the URAA that disqualifies films whose copyright status changed during the transition period of 1 January 1995 to 1 January 1996?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Video-Cellar Date: Jul 10, 2009 7:32pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: More new monsters

Just for clarification, no British films protected by the 1988 or 1956 Acts where in the public domain during the transitional year for GATT. Only British films whose copyright had expired under the 1911 Act where in the public domain. Copyright term extension in 1995 did not and does not effect their status or copyright term. In other words, these film's copyright status did not change during the transitional year. So qualification for GATT/URAA restoration was the same at both the commencement and close of the transitional year. The qualifications for GATT/URAA restorations are:

"(6) The term “restored work” means an original work of authorship that—
(A) is protected under subsection (a);
(B) is not in the public domain in its source country through expiration of term of protection;
(C) is in the public domain in the United States due to—
(i) noncompliance with formalities imposed at any time by United States copyright law, including failure of renewal, lack of proper notice, or failure to comply with any manufacturing requirements;
(ii) lack of subject matter protection in the case of sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972; or
(iii) lack of national eligibility;
(D) has at least one author or rightholder who was, at the time the work was created, a national or domiciliary of an eligible country, and if published, was first published in an eligible country and not published in the United States during the 30-day period following publication in such eligible country.
(E) if the source country for the work is an eligible country solely by virtue of its adherence to the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, is a sound recording. (Title 17, §104A(h))
"The Ghoul" was not eligible for GATT/URAA restoration because of its non-compliance with:
(B) as the work entered the UK public domain at 00:00 1 Jan 1995:
a) Dramatic work expired 50 calender years after the author T Hayes Hunter's death in 1944. (31 december 1994)
b) photography expired 50 calender years after publication 1933 (31 December 1983)
c) sound recordings expired 50 calender years after publication 1933 (31 December 1983)
and (D) the only authorial rights holder under British law was a US citizen, Thomas Hayes Hunter.

Should a work's native copyright be changed, or a copyright relationship be formed, after the commencement of URAA a further 2 year transitional period comes into force before new eligible PD works are restored under US law. The eligibilty requirements are the same as when the URAA altered Title 17 (except (E), above, which was added in late 1997)

This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2009-07-11 02:32:55